(Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan) Issued by the · public company accounting oversight board october 29, 2015 pcaob release no. 104-2016-005 this is a public version of a pcaob inspection

1666 K Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 207-9100Facsimile: (202) 862-8433

www.pcaobus.org

Report on

2014 Inspection of Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC(Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan)

Issued by the

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

October 29, 2015

PCAOB RELEASE NO. 104-2016-005

THIS IS A PUBLIC VERSION OF A PCAOB INSPECTION REPORT

PORTIONS OF THE COMPLETE REPORT ARE OMITTEDFROM THIS DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

SECTIONS 104(g)(2) AND 105(b)(5)(A)OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

PCAOB Release No. 104-2016-005

2014 INSPECTION OF ERNST & YOUNG SHINNIHON LLC

Preface

In 2014, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB" or "theBoard") conducted an inspection of the registered public accounting firm Ernst & YoungShinNihon LLC ("the Firm") pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("the Act").

Inspections are designed and performed to provide a basis for assessing thedegree of compliance by a firm with applicable requirements related to issuer auditwork. For a description of the procedures the Board's inspectors may perform to fulfillthis responsibility, see Part I.C of this report (which also contains additional informationconcerning PCAOB inspections generally). Overall, the inspection process includedreviews of portions of two issuer audits performed by the Firm and the Firm's audit workon one issuer audit engagement in which it played a role but was not the principalauditor. These reviews were intended to identify whether deficiencies existed in thoseportions of the inspected audit work, and whether such deficiencies indicated defects orpotential defects in the Firm's system of quality control over audit work. In addition, theinspection included a review of policies and procedures related to certain quality controlprocesses of the Firm that could be expected to affect audit quality.

The Board is issuing this report in accordance with the requirements of the Act.The Board is releasing to the public Part I of the report and portions of Part IV of thereport. Part IV of the report consists of the Firm's comments, if any, on a draft of thereport. If the nonpublic portions of the report discuss criticisms of or potential defects inthe firm's system of quality control, those discussions also could eventually be madepublic, but only to the extent the firm fails to address the criticisms to the Board'ssatisfaction within 12 months of the issuance of the report.

PCAOB Release No. 104-2016-005Inspection of Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC

October 29, 2015Page 2

PROFILE OF THE FIRM1

Number of offices 372

Ownership structure Limited liability audit corporation

Number of partners 653

Number of professional staff3 4,589

Number of issuer audit clients 5

Number of other issuer audits inwhich the Firm plays a role4

49

1 The information presented here is as understood by the inspection team,generally as of the outset of the inspection, based on the Firm's self-reporting and theinspection team's review of certain information. Additional information, includingadditional detail on audit reports issued by the Firm, is available in the Firm's filings withthe Board, available at http://pcaobus.org/Registration/rasr/Pages/RASR_Search.aspx.

2 The Firm's offices are located in Akita, Aomori, Chiba, Fukui, Fukuoka,Fukushima, Gifu, Hamamatsu, Hiroshima, Kagoshima, Kanazawa, Kobe, Kofu,Kumamoto, Kyoto, Matsumoto, Matsuyama, Mito, Miyazaki, Nagano, Nagaoka, Nago,Nagoya, Naha, Niigata, Osaka, Saitama, Sapporo, Sendai, Shizuoka, Takamatsu,Takasaki, Tokyo, Toyama, Toyohashi, Yamagata, and Yokohama, Japan.

3 The number of partners and professional staff is provided here as anindication of the size of the Firm, and does not necessarily represent the number of theFirm's professionals who participate in audits of issuers.

4 The number of other issuer audits encompasses audit work performed bythe Firm in engagements for which the Firm was not the principal auditor, includingaudits, if any, in which the Firm plays a substantial role as defined in PCAOB Rule1001(p)(ii).



PART I

INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS

Members of the Board's inspection staff ("the inspection team") conductedprimary procedures for the inspection from August 4, 2014 to August 15, 2014 and fromSeptember 8, 2014 to September 19, 2014.5

A. Review of Audit Engagements

The inspection procedures included reviews of portions of two issuer auditsperformed by the Firm and the Firm's audit work on one issuer audit engagement inwhich it played a role but was not the principal auditor. The inspection team identifiedmatters that it considered to be deficiencies in the performance of the work it reviewed.

The descriptions of the deficiencies in Part I.A of this report include, at the end ofthe description of each deficiency, references to specific paragraphs of the auditingstandards that relate to those deficiencies. The text of those paragraphs is set forth inAppendix A to this report. The references in this sub-Part include only standards thatprimarily relate to the deficiencies; they do not present a comprehensive list of everyauditing standard that applies to the deficiencies. Further, certain broadly applicableaspects of the auditing standards that may be relevant to a deficiency, such asprovisions requiring due professional care, including the exercise of professionalskepticism; the accumulation of sufficient appropriate audit evidence; and theperformance of procedures that address risks, are not included in any references to theauditing standards in this sub-Part, unless the lack of compliance with these standardsis the primary reason for the deficiency. These broadly applicable provisions aredescribed in Part I.B of this report.

Certain deficiencies identified were of such significance that it appeared to theinspection team that the Firm, at the time it issued its audit report, had not obtainedsufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion that the financial statements

5 For this purpose, "primary procedures" include field work, other review ofaudit work papers, and the evaluation of the Firm's quality control policies andprocedures through review of documentation and interviews of Firm personnel. Primaryprocedures do not include (1) inspection planning, which is performed prior to primaryprocedures, and (2) inspection follow-up procedures, wrap-up, analysis of results, andthe preparation of the inspection report, which extend beyond the primary procedures.



were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicablefinancial reporting framework and its opinion about whether the issuer had maintained,in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting ("ICFR"). Inother words, in this audit, the auditor issued an opinion without satisfying itsfundamental obligation to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financialstatements were free of material misstatement and the issuer maintained effectiveICFR.

The fact that one or more deficiencies in an audit reach this level of significancedoes not necessarily indicate that the financial statements are misstated or that thereare undisclosed material weaknesses in ICFR. It is often not possible for the inspectionteam, based only on the information available from the auditor, to reach a conclusion onthose points.

Whether or not associated with a disclosed financial reporting misstatement, anauditor's failure to obtain the reasonable assurance that the auditor is required to obtainis a serious matter. It is a failure to accomplish the essential purpose of the audit, and itmeans that, based on the audit work performed, the audit opinion should not have beenissued.6

The audit deficiencies that reached this level of significance are describedbelow–

Issuer A

(1) the failure, in an audit of ICFR, to perform sufficient procedures totest the operating effectiveness of controls over the occurrence,completeness, and allocation of certain revenue, including the failure toperform sufficient procedures with respect to service organization controls(AS No. 5, paragraphs 39, B24 – B26);

6 Inclusion in an inspection report does not mean that the deficiencyremained unaddressed after the inspection team brought it to the Firm's attention.Depending upon the circumstances, compliance with PCAOB standards may requirethe Firm to perform additional audit procedures, or to inform a client of the need forchanges to its financial statements or reporting on internal control, or to take steps toprevent reliance on its previously expressed audit opinions. The Board expects thatfirms will comply with these standards, and the inspections staff may include in itsprocedures monitoring or assessing a firm's compliance.



(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence,completeness, and allocation of certain revenue, including the inadequateperformance of substantive analytical procedures (AS No. 13, paragraph8, AU 329, paragraphs .14 and .16 and AU 350, paragraph .24); and

(3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation ofcertain assets and liabilities, including the failure to perform sufficientprocedures to extend the audit conclusion from the interim date for itssubstantive procedures to year end (AS No. 13, paragraph 45).

B. Auditing Standards

Each deficiency described above could relate to several applicable provisions ofthe standards that govern the conduct of audit work, including both the paragraphs ofthe standards that are cited at the end of each description of the deficiency included inPart I.A of this report and one or more of the specific paragraphs discussed below.

Many audit deficiencies involve a lack of due professional care. AU 230, DueProfessional Care in the Performance of Work ("AU 230"), paragraphs .02, .05, and .06,requires the independent auditor to plan and perform his or her work with dueprofessional care and sets forth aspects of that requirement. AU 230, paragraphs .07through .09, and Auditing Standard ("AS") No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risksof Material Misstatement ("AS No. 13"), paragraph 7, specify that due professional carerequires the exercise of professional skepticism. These standards state thatprofessional skepticism is an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a criticalassessment of the appropriateness and sufficiency of audit evidence.

AS No. 13, paragraphs 3, 5, and 8, requires the auditor to design and implementaudit responses that address the risks of material misstatement, and AS No. 15, AuditEvidence ("AS No. 15"), paragraph 4, requires the auditor to plan and perform auditprocedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a reasonable basisfor the audit opinion. Sufficiency is the measure of the quantity of audit evidence, andthe quantity needed is affected by the risk of material misstatement in the audit offinancial statements or the risk associated with the control in the audit of ICFR and thequality of the audit evidence obtained. The appropriateness of evidence is measured byits quality; to be appropriate, evidence must be both relevant and reliable in support ofthe related conclusions.

The table below lists the specific auditing standards that are referenced for eachdeficiency included in Part I.A of this report. See the descriptions of the deficiencies in



Part I.A for identification of the specific paragraphs, in addition to those noted above,that relate to the individual deficiencies. Standards discussed above are cited again inthe table only if the particular deficiency relates to aspects of the standard that are notdiscussed above.

PCAOB Auditing Standards Issuer

AS No. 5, An Audit of Internal Control OverFinancial Reporting That is Integrated with AnAudit of Financial Statements

A

AS No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risksof Material Misstatement

A

AU 329, Substantive Analytical Procedures A

AU 350, Audit Sampling A

C. Information Concerning PCAOB Inspections Generally Applicable to TrienniallyInspected Firms

Board inspections include reviews of certain portions of selected audit workperformed by the inspected firm and reviews of certain aspects of the firm's qualitycontrol system. The inspections are designed to identify deficiencies in audit work anddefects or potential defects in the firm's system of quality control related to the firm'saudit work. The focus on deficiencies, defects, and potential defects necessarily carriesthrough to reports on inspections and, accordingly, Board inspection reports are notintended to serve as balanced report cards or overall rating tools. Further, the inclusionin an inspection report of certain deficiencies, defects, and potential defects should notbe construed as an indication that the Board has made any determination about otheraspects of the inspected firm's systems, policies, procedures, practices, or conduct notincluded within the report.

1. Reviews of Audit Work

Inspections include reviews of portions of selected audits of financial statementsand, where applicable, audits of ICFR and the firm’s audit work on other issuer auditengagements in which it played a role but was not the principal auditor. For these auditengagements, the inspection team selects certain portions of the engagements for



inspection, and it reviews the engagement team's work papers and interviewsengagement personnel regarding those portions. If the inspection team identifies apotential issue that it is unable to resolve through discussion with the firm and anyreview of additional work papers or other documentation, the inspection team ordinarilyprovides the firm with a written comment form on the matter and the firm is allowed theopportunity to provide a written response to the comment form. If the response doesnot resolve the inspection team's concerns, the matter is considered a deficiency and isevaluated for inclusion in the inspection report.

The inspection team selects the audit engagements, and the specific portions ofthose audit engagements, that it will review, and the inspected firm is not allowed anopportunity to limit or influence the selections. Audit deficiencies that the inspectionteam may identify include a firm's failure to identify, or to address appropriately, financialstatement misstatements, including failures to comply with disclosure requirements,7 aswell as a firm's failures to perform, or to perform sufficiently, certain necessary auditprocedures. The inspection may not involve the review of all of a firm's audit work, noris it designed to identify every deficiency in the reviewed audit engagements.Accordingly, a Board inspection report should not be understood to provide anyassurance that a firm's audit work, or the relevant issuers' financial statements orreporting on ICFR, are free of any deficiencies not specifically described in aninspection report.

In some cases, the conclusion that a firm did not perform a procedure may bebased on the absence of documentation and the absence of persuasive other evidence,even if the firm claimed to have performed the procedure. AS No. 3, AuditDocumentation ("AS No. 3"), provides that, in various circumstances including PCAOBinspections, a firm that has not adequately documented that it performed a procedure,obtained evidence, or reached an appropriate conclusion, must demonstrate withpersuasive other evidence that it did so, and that oral assertions and explanations alone

7 When it comes to the Board's attention that an issuer's financialstatements appear not to present fairly, in a material respect, the financial position,results of operations, or cash flows of the issuer in conformity with applicableaccounting principles, the Board's practice is to report that information to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "the Commission"), which has jurisdiction todetermine proper accounting in issuers' financial statements. Any description in thisreport of financial statement misstatements or failures to comply with SEC disclosurerequirements should not be understood as an indication that the SEC has considered ormade any determination regarding these issues unless otherwise expressly stated.



do not constitute persuasive other evidence. In reaching its conclusions, the inspectionteam considers whether audit documentation or any persuasive other evidence that afirm might provide to the inspection team supports a firm's contention that it performed aprocedure, obtained evidence, or reached an appropriate conclusion. In the case ofevery matter cited in the public portion of a final inspection report, the inspection teamhas carefully considered any contention by the firm that it did so but just did notdocument its work, and the inspection team has concluded that the available evidencedoes not support the contention that the firm sufficiently performed the necessary work.

Identified deficiencies in the audit work that exceed a significance threshold(which is described in Part I.A of the inspection report) are summarized in the publicportion of the inspection report.8

The Board cautions against extrapolating from the results presented in the publicportion of a report to broader conclusions about the frequency of deficienciesthroughout the firm's practice. Individual audit engagements and areas of inspectionfocus are most often selected on a risk-weighted basis and not randomly. Areas offocus vary among selected audit engagements, but often involve audit work on the mostdifficult or inherently uncertain areas of financial statements. Thus, the audit work isgenerally selected for inspection based on factors that, in the inspection team's view,heighten the possibility that auditing deficiencies are present, rather than through aprocess intended to identify a representative sample.

2. Review of a Firm's Quality Control System

QC 20, System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm's Accounting and AuditingPractice ("QC 20"), provides that an auditing firm has a responsibility to ensure that itspersonnel comply with the applicable professional standards. This standard specifiesthat a firm's system of quality control should encompass the following elements: (1)independence, integrity, and objectivity; (2) personnel management; (3) acceptance and

8 The discussion in this report of any deficiency observed in a particularaudit engagement reflects information reported to the Board by the inspection team anddoes not reflect any determination by the Board as to whether the Firm has engaged inany conduct for which it could be sanctioned through the Board's disciplinary process.In addition, any references in this report to violations or potential violations of law, rules,or professional standards are not a result of an adversarial adjudicative process and donot constitute conclusive findings for purposes of imposing legal liability.



continuance of issuer audit engagements; (4) engagement performance; and (5)monitoring.

The inspection team's assessment of a firm's quality control system is derivedboth from the results of its procedures specifically focused on the firm's quality controlpolicies and procedures, and also from inferences that can be drawn from deficienciesin the performance of individual audit engagements. Audit deficiencies, whether aloneor when aggregated, may indicate areas where a firm's system has failed to providereasonable assurance of quality in the performance of audit work. Even deficienciesthat do not result in an insufficiently supported audit opinion or a failure to obtainsufficient appropriate audit evidence to fulfill the objectives of its role in an audit mayindicate a defect or potential defect in a firm's quality control system.9 If identifieddeficiencies, when accumulated and evaluated, indicate defects or potential defects inthe firm's system of quality control, the nonpublic portion of this report would include adiscussion of those issues. When evaluating whether identified deficiencies inindividual audit engagements indicate a defect or potential defect in a firm's system ofquality control, the inspection team considers the nature, significance, and frequency ofdeficiencies;10 related firm methodology, guidance, and practices; and possible rootcauses.

Inspections also include a review of certain of the firm's practices, policies, andprocesses related to audit quality, which constitute a part of the firm's quality controlsystem. This review addresses practices, policies, and procedures concerning auditperformance and the following eight functional areas (1) tone at the top; (2) practices forpartner evaluation, compensation, admission, assignment of responsibilities, anddisciplinary actions; (3) independence implications of non-audit services; businessventures, alliances, and arrangements; personal financial interests; and commissionsand contingent fees; (4) practices for client acceptance and retention; (5) practices forconsultations on accounting, auditing, and SEC matters; (6) the Firm's internal

9 Not every audit deficiency suggests a defect or potential defect in a firm'squality control system.

10 An evaluation of the frequency of a type of deficiency may includeconsideration of how often the inspection team reviewed audit work that presented theopportunity for similar deficiencies to occur. In some cases, even a type of deficiencythat is observed infrequently in a particular inspection may, because of somecombination of its nature, its significance, and the frequency with which it has beenobserved in previous inspections of the firm, be cause for concern about a qualitycontrol defect or potential defect.



inspection program; (7) practices for establishment and communication of audit policies,procedures, and methodologies, including training; and (8) the supervision by the Firm'saudit engagement teams of the work performed by foreign affiliates.

END OF PART I



PARTS II AND III OF THIS REPORT ARE NONPUBLICAND ARE OMITTED FROM THIS PUBLIC DOCUMENT



PART IV

RESPONSE OF THE FIRM TO DRAFT INSPECTION REPORT

Pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7214(f), and PCAOB Rule4007(a), the Firm provided a written response to a draft of this report. Pursuant tosection 104(f) of the Act and PCAOB Rule 4007(b), the Firm's response, minus anyportion granted confidential treatment, is attached hereto and made part of this finalinspection report.11

11 The Board does not make public any of a firm's comments that address anonpublic portion of the report unless a firm specifically requests otherwise. In somecases, the result may be that none of a firm's response is made publicly available. Inaddition, pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7214(f), and PCAOB Rule4007(b), if a firm requests, and the Board grants, confidential treatment for any of thefirm's comments on a draft report, the Board does not include those comments in thefinal report at all. The Board routinely grants confidential treatment, if requested, for anyportion of a firm's response that addresses any point in the draft that the Board omitsfrom, or any inaccurate statement in the draft that the Board corrects in, the final report.


October 29, 2015Page A-1

APPENDIX A

AUDITING STANDARDS REFERENCED IN PART I

This appendix provides the text of the auditing standard paragraphs that arereferenced in Part I.A of this report. Footnotes that are included in this Appendix, andany other Notes, are from the original auditing standards that are referenced. While thisAppendix contains the specific portions of the relevant standards cited with respect tothe deficiencies in Part I.A of this report, other portions of the standards (including thosedescribed in Part I.B of this report) may provide additional context, descriptions, relatedrequirements, or explanations; the complete standards are available on the PCAOB'swebsite at http://pcaobus.org/STANDARDS/Pages/default.aspx.

AS No. 5, An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integratedwith An Audit of Financial Statements

USING A TOP-DOWNAPPROACH

Selecting Controls to Test

AS No. 5.39 The auditor should test those controls that areimportant to the auditor's conclusion about whether thecompany's controls sufficiently address the assessed riskof misstatement to each relevant assertion.

Issuer A

USE OF SERVICEORGANIZATIONS

AS No. 5.B24 When a significant period of time has elapsedbetween the time period covered by the tests of controls inthe service auditor's report and the date specified inmanagement's assessment, additional procedures shouldbe performed. The auditor should inquire of managementto determine whether management has identified anychanges in the service organization's controls subsequentto the period covered by the service auditor's report (suchas changes communicated to management from theservice organization, changes in personnel at the serviceorganization with whom management interacts, changes inreports or other data received from the serviceorganization, changes in contracts or service levelagreements with the service organization, or errorsidentified in the service organization's processing). Ifmanagement has identified such changes, the auditorshould evaluate the effect of such changes on theeffectiveness of the company's internal control overfinancial reporting. The auditor also should evaluatewhether the results of other procedures he or she

Issuer A



AS No. 5, An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integratedwith An Audit of Financial Statements

performed indicate that there have been changes in thecontrols at the service organization.

AS No. 5.B25 The auditor should determine whether to obtainadditional evidence about the operating effectiveness ofcontrols at the service organization based on theprocedures performed by management or the auditor andthe results of those procedures and on an evaluation of thefollowing risk factors. As risk increases, the need for theauditor to obtain additional evidence increases.

The elapsed time between the time periodcovered by the tests of controls in the serviceauditor's report and the date specified inmanagement's assessment,

The significance of the activities of the serviceorganization,

Whether there are errors that have beenidentified in the service organization'sprocessing, and

The nature and significance of any changes inthe service organization's controls identified bymanagement or the auditor.

Issuer A

AS No. 5.B26 If the auditor concludes that additional evidenceabout the operating effectiveness of controls at the serviceorganization is required, the auditor's additional proceduresmight include –

Evaluating procedures performed bymanagement and the results of thoseprocedures.

Contacting the service organization, throughthe user organization, to obtain specificinformation.

Requesting that a service auditor be engagedto perform procedures that will supply thenecessary information.

Visiting the service organization andperforming such procedures.

Issuer A



AS No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement

Responses Involving theNature, Timing, and Extentof Audit Procedures

AS No. 13.8 The auditor should design and perform auditprocedures in a manner that addresses the assessedrisks of material misstatement for each relevant assertionof each significant account and disclosure.

Issuer A

TIMING OF SUBSTANTIVEPROCEDURES

AS No. 13.45 When substantive procedures are performed atan interim date, the auditor should cover the remainingperiod by performing substantive procedures, orsubstantive procedures combined with tests of controls,that provide a reasonable basis for extending the auditconclusions from the interim date to the period end.Such procedures should include (a) comparing relevantinformation about the account balance at the interimdate with comparable information at the end of theperiod to identify amounts that appear unusual andinvestigating such amounts and (b) performing auditprocedures to test the remaining period.

Issuer A

AU 329, Substantive Analytical Procedures

Plausibility andPredictability of theRelationship

AU 329.14 As higher levels of assurance are desired fromanalytical procedures, more predictable relationships arerequired to develop the expectation. Relationships in a stableenvironment are usually more predictable than relationshipsin a dynamic or unstable environment. Relationships involvingincome statement accounts tend to be more predictable thanrelationships involving only balance sheet accounts sinceincome statement accounts represent transactions over aperiod of time, whereas balance sheet accounts representamounts as of a point in time. Relationships involvingtransactions subject to management discretion aresometimes less predictable. For example, management mayelect to incur maintenance expense rather than replace plantand equipment, or they may delay advertising expenditures.

Issuer A

Availability and Reliabilityof Data



AU 329, Substantive Analytical Procedures

AU 329.16 Before using the results obtained from substantiveanalytical procedures, the auditor should either test thedesign and operating effectiveness of controls over financialinformation used in the substantive analytical procedures orperform other procedures to support the completeness andaccuracy of the underlying information. The auditor obtainsassurance from analytical procedures based upon theconsistency of the recorded amounts with expectationsdeveloped from data derived from other sources. Thereliability of the data used to develop the expectations shouldbe appropriate for the desired level of assurance from theanalytical procedure. The auditor should assess the reliabilityof the data by considering the source of the data and theconditions under which it was gathered, as well as otherknowledge the auditor may have about the data. Thefollowing factors influence the auditor's consideration of thereliability of data for purposes of achieving audit objectives:

Whether the data was obtained from independentsources outside the entity or from sources withinthe entity

Whether sources within the entity wereindependent of those who are responsible for theamount being audited

Whether the data was developed under a reliablesystem with adequate controls

Whether the data was subjected to audit testing inthe current or prior year

Whether the expectations were developed usingdata from a variety of sources

Issuer A

AU 350, Audit Sampling

Sampling In SubstantiveTests Of Details

Sample Selection

AU 350.24 Sample items should be selected in such a way thatthe sample can be expected to be representative of thepopulation. Therefore, all items in the population shouldhave an opportunity to be selected. For example,haphazard and random-based selection of itemsrepresents two means of obtaining such samples.fn 4

Issuer A



AU 350, Audit Sampling

Footnote to AU 350.24

fn 4 Random-based selection includes, for example, random sampling, stratified randomsampling, sampling with probability proportional to size, and systematic sampling (for example, everyhundredth item) with one or more random starts.

Documents

(Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan) Issued by the · public company accounting oversight board october 29, 2015 pcaob release no. 104-2016-005 this is a public version of a pcaob inspection